Sunday, March 31, 2013

Normally I dislike the SSPX for their schismatic tendencies, but they have a few articles that are good that refute the lies and ignorance of Sedevacantists (who plagiarize each others lies). Here is one on the validity of the Ordination of bishops by Pope Paul VI. Note most sedevacantists never bother to actually read primary sources or look into an issue besides plaguarising people like the phony "Demon Bros." Here is the link showing the validity of the rite http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/sedevacantism/validity_of_episcopal_consecrations.pdf

It shows the rite of ordination of Paul VI is restoration of an older rite used in the early Church taken from the "Apostolic Traditions" by a Hippolytus. Some may argue that this document contains a rite never actually used, whether that is true or not, it is true that the Copts and Maronites has historically used an almost identical rite of Ordination--and their bishops validity was NEVER questioned.

Saturday, March 30, 2013

I have noticed there is widespread dishonesty, incompetence and fabrication in the groups of people that style themselves "traditionalists," whether they be SSPX, SSPV and especially the Sedevacantists. Here is one example

If any ecclesiastic or layman shall go into the synagogue of the Jews or to the meeting-houses of the heretics to join in prayer with them, let them be deposed and deprived of communion If﻿ any Bishops or Priest or Deacon shall join in prayer with heretics, let him be suspended from Communion" - III Council of Constantinople (sometimes cited as II Council of Constantinople)

This canon I have not found in any of the four Councils of Constantinople. Nor in Denzinger! This "canon" is quoted by this list of incompetent sources (exclude me since I will appear on there for this article). This has a number of Sedevacantists and "rad trads" site and forums. Notice none of these sites even bother to quote the "canon number" or section of the council! And as I mentioned above--they are inconsistent with what council it is! I accidently ran into what I think is the REAL source of this canon--the "Apostolic Constitution" which was written around AD 400--this document lacks ANY authority and cannot be quoted as part of the magisterium! Here is what the "Apostolic Constitution" says:

The Rad Trads have used this against Popes John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis (I) to try to condemn them for entering synagogues--which they did! But the issue is did the popes pray "with" the Jews, or AT their place of worship? Its more likely the SECOND case! Either way, NO ONE is bound by the Apostolic Constitution! In any case, this shows that ignorance, incompetence, plagiarism, and dishonesty are PREVALENT among the "rad trads."

Note: This article is to prove the Apostolic Constitution did not teach a weekly Sabbath keeping where work was not to be done, but only a "annual" day on the Sabbath--Holy Saturday where work was not done, and fasting was expected. This article does show the antiquity of many ecclesiastical practices, fasts etc, however, despite its dating (c AD 400) it lacks authority, and its more "apocryphal" than anything.

Once before I met a Judaizer that used the Apostolic Constitution as proof that it was standard practice that the early Christians kept a weekly Sabbath. However, this is not what the Apostolic Constitution taught. Though, the Apostolic Constitution does refer to Christians observing a Sabbath "rest" on the 7th day of the week, there was ONLY one week in the whole year this was to be done--Holy Saturday, which in the early Church was also special fast day (it was part of the 40 hours that Christian kept a special fast, from the time Christ died til He rose up). Anyway, here are the references to the Sabbath day in the Apostolic Constitution:

You shall observe the Sabbath, on account of Him who ceased from His work of creation, but ceased not from His work of providence: it is a rest for meditation of the law, not for idleness of the hands.--Apostolic Constitution Book II: Section XXXVI, The Recital of the Ten Commandments, and After What Manner They Do Here Prescribe to Us.

Then the same book II mentions the Sabbath again without mentioning rest, since in the early Church they still tended to refer to the 7th day of the week as the "Sabbath" and had mass held on it, despite the fact they did not observe the Sabbath as a Hebrew would under the Old Law given to Moses.

Let your judicatures be held on the second day of the week, that if any controversy arise about your sentence, having an interval till the Sabbath, you may be able to set the controversy right, and to reduce those to peace who have the contests one with another against the Lord's day.--Apostolic Constitution Book II: Section XLVII

Notice how this document refers to the "Lord's Day" in the Early Church this REFERED to SUNDAY (the first day), not the Sabbath (the 7th day). Here is another instance where "Sabbath" and the "Lord's Day" appear together, but for separate days:

Be not careless of yourselves, neither deprive your Saviour of His own members, neither divide His body nor disperse His members, neither prefer the occasions of this life to the word of God; but assemble yourselves together every day, morning and evening, singing psalms and praying in the Lord's house: in the morning saying the sixty-second Psalm, and in the evening the hundred and fortieth, but principally on the Sabbath day. And on the day of our Lord's resurrection, which is the Lord's day, meet more diligently, sending praise to God that made the universe by Jesus, and sent Him to us, and condescended to let Him suffer, and raised Him from the dead.--Apostolic Constitution Book II: Section LIX

The next time the word Sabbath appears in the Apostolic Constitution is book V where it refers to the Sabbath fast on Holy Saturday:

But He appointed us to break our fast on the seventh day at the cock-crowing, but to fast on the Sabbath day. Not that the Sabbath day is a day of fasting, being the rest from the creation, but because we ought to fast on this one Sabbath only, while on this day the creator was under the earth. --Apostolic Constitution Book V: Section XV

Then it discusses a sort of mini Lent during Holy week where some forms of fasting, abstaining from meat and wine are done, and refer to the one Sabbath rest to be kept, note that "Passover" itself has its own Christian connotation in fact in most traditional Christian languages like Latin, Greek, Spanish, Aramaic the word "Passover" is still used:

Do you therefore fast on the days of the passover, beginning from the second day of the week until the preparation, and the Sabbath, six days, making use of only bread, and salt, and herbs, and water for your drink; but do you abstain on these days from wine and flesh, for they are days of lamentation and not of feasting. Do ye who are able fast the day of the preparation and the Sabbath day entirely, tasting nothing till the cock-crowing of the night; but if any one is not able to join them both together, at least let him observe the Sabbath day; for the Lord says somewhere, speaking of Himself: "When the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, in those days shall they fast." In these days, therefore, He was taken from us by the Jews, falsely so named, and fastened to the cross, and "was numbered among the transgressors." --Apostolic Constitution Book V: Section XVIII, Concerning the Great Passover week

Then the next section XIX refers to some more rules for Holy Saturday and the week in general and includes prayers for the conversion of unbelieving Israel that they might repent of their crime of slaying the Lord Jesus. The section also refers to a the eucharist as a "sacrifice" using Luke 22:19 as a proof text

For this reason do you also, now the Lord is risen, offer your sacrifice, concerning which He made a constitution by us, saying, Do this for a remembrance of me;

Obviously, emphasizing the word "anamnesis" which general refers to a sacrifice. However, because of its length you can go read it yourself. Anyway, on to the next occurrence of the word Sabbath in Apostolic Constitution

And Esther, and Mordecai, and Judith, by fasting, escaped the insurrection
of the ungodly Holofernes and Haman. And David says: "My knees are weak
through fasting, and my flesh fails for want of oil." Do you therefore
fast, and ask your petitions of God. We enjoin you to fast every fourth day of
the week, and every day of the preparation, and the surplusage of your fast
bestow upon the needy; every Sabbath day excepting one, and every
Lord's day, hold your solemn assemblies, and rejoice: for he will be
guilty of sin who fasts on the Lord's day, being the day of the resurrection,
or during the time of Pentecost, or, in general, who is sad on a festival day
to the Lord. For on them we ought to rejoice, and not to mourn.-Apostolic Constitution Book V: Section XX

I included this paragraph also, because it refers to the person
"Judith" and "Holofernes" are only found in the Canons of
the Bible found in the historical Christian Churches--the Catholic and Orthodox
(both eastern and oriental). This book was removed by Protestants, Baptists,
"evangelicals" from their bible canon, thus subtracting from the Word
of God and falsely claiming we "added" to It! This document also
makes mention of the ancient practice of fasting on Wednesdays and Fridays,
this practice is largely abandoned in modern times, now this practice remains
with the abstaining from meat on Ash Wednesday, and the weekly Friday penances
(especially the Good Friday where fasting is expected). In regards to the
Sabbath it mentions having Holy Mass said on it all weeks, except one. Note "solemn assemblies" is one of several older terms for Mass. Mass is a relatively new term for an ancient Divine Liturgy. The next occurrence of the word "Sabbath" in this text is book VI, which is quoting Isaiah "your new moons, and your Sabbaths, and your great day, I cannot bear them" which is a favorite verse of the Fathers when referring to the 7th day Sabbath, Tertullian uses this too. I will skip quoting this and go on to the next instance where the issue is really discussed:

He who had commanded to keep the Sabbath, by resting thereon for the sake of meditating on the laws, has now commanded us to consider of the law of creation, and of providence every day, and to return thanks to God.--Apostolic Constitution Book VI: Section XXIII

This section is a commentary on the Matthew 5's sermon on the mount. This section is saying that we are commanded to "consider the law of creation and of providence EVERY DAY, and to return thanks to God," which it says is the purpose of the Sabbath day rest on Saturday. This seems to be another reference to the "perpetual Sabbath" many of the ante Nicene Fathers spoke of which was spiritual, not physical. This next section perhaps best explains the Sabbath in the Apostolic Constitution:

But let
not your fasts be with the hypocrites; for they fast on the second and fifth
days of the week. But do you either fast the entire five days, or on the fourth
day of the week, and on the day of the Preparation, because on the fourth day
the condemnation went out against the Lord, Judas then promising to betray Him
for money; and you must fast on the day of the Preparation, because on that day
the Lord suffered the death of the cross under Pontius Pilate. But keep the
Sabbath, and the Lord's day festival; because the former is the memorial of the
creation, and the latter of the resurrection. But there is one only Sabbath to
be observed by you in the whole year, which is that of our Lord's burial, on
which men ought to keep a fast, but not a festival. For inasmuch as the Creator
was then under the earth, the sorrow for Him is more forcible than the joy for
the creation; for the Creator is more honourable by nature and dignity than His
own creatures. --Apostolic Constitution Book VII: Section XXIII

This explicitly states there is only ONE time the Sabbath "rest" is to be observed in the whole year and that is Holy Saturday, which is a fast day also according to them! It explains the Sabbath is a remembrance of creation, probably referring to Genesis 2's "rest" on the 7th day. This is interesting because this document has two consecutive fast days! Good Friday and Holy Saturday! Also, interesting this section also states why Christians fast on Mondays and Thursdays--because those days the "hypocrites" do, referring of course to the Pharisees who Jesus battled against. It states the "fourth day" and the "preparation day" are fast days, ie Wednesday and Friday, which as I mentioned before is a practice still done by some Catholics.

Anyway, the rest of the references to the Sabbath day are found in Book VII section XXXVI, where it pretty much repeats the same things. Book VIII section XXXIII claims to have Peter and Paul stating slaves are not to work during Holy Week (including Holy Saturday), the Ascension, Christmas and a few other days. This canon 64 of that section claims Peter and Paul issued a condemnation of clerics that fast on Sabbath and Sundays (except Holy Saturday).

Sunday, March 17, 2013

Here are some places in Jewish tradition--mostly the Talmud (Talmidim) where the veneration of saints was done, where the "tzaddik" was physically dead, but a Jew believed they can still hear their plea for intercession, Jews refuse to use the word "pray," however, the concept of "asking" is the same. Notice some of these references even have the person prostrating at the tomb of their "saint." Most of these are Tractates from Seder Mo'ed. One is from the Zohar. The translations are from the link provided, which are mostly Socino:

“And they went up by the South and he came unto
Hebron — it should have read 'and they came'! — Raba said: It teaches that
Caleb held aloof from the plan of the spies and went and prostratedhimself upon the graves
of the patriarchs, saying to them, 'My fathers, pray on
my behalf that I may be delivered from the plan of the spies'. (As
for Joshua, Moses had already prayed on his behalf; as it is said: And Moses
called Hoshea the son of Nun Joshua, [meaning], May Jah save thee [yoshi'aka]
from the plan of the spies.) That is the intention of what is written: But My
servant Caleb, because he had another spirit with him. “—Sotah 34b

“Why do they go
to the cemetery? — With regard to this there is a difference of opinion between
R. Levi b. Hama nad R. Hanina. One says: [To signify thereby], We are as the dead
before Thee; and the other says: In order
that the dead should intercede for mercy on our behalf.”—SEDER MO‘ED, TracateTa'anit 16a
[Taanis]

“R. Mani, was
annoyed by the members of the household of the Patriarch, he went and prostrated himself
on the grave of his father and exclaimed: “Father, father, these people persecute
me.” Once as they were passing [the grave] the knees of their horses
became stiff [and remained so] until they undertook not to persecute him any
longer.”-- SEDER MO‘ED, TracateTa'anit 23b
[Taanis]

"Forthwith, R. Joshua went and prostrated himself upon the graves of Beth Shammai. He said, "I crave your pardon, bones of Beth Shammai. If your unexplained teachings are so [excellent] how much more so the explained teachings."Hagigah 22b (chagigah)

Rabbi Haviva said, “Rabbi Haviva son of Surmaki
told me: “I saw one of the rabbis whom Elijah used to frequent. In the morning
his eyes were lovely, but in the evening they looked as if they had been burnt
by fire. I asked him, ‘What is it?’ He told me that he has asked Elijah, ‘Show
me the [departed] rabbis as they ascend to the Heavenly Academy.’ He [Elijah]
replied: ‘You can gaze at all of them except for the carriage of Rabbi Hiyya,
at which you cannot gaze.’ ‘What is their sign? [How can I distinguish between
them?[‘ ‘All are accompanied by angels as they ascend and descend, except for
the Rabbi Hiyya’s carriage, which ascends and descends on its own.’ ‘Unable to
restrain myself, I gazed at it. Two sparks of fire shot forth and struck that
man [i.e. me], blinding him. The next day I went and prostrated myself upon his [Rabbi Hiyya’s] grave, crying, “Your
mishnah is my mishnah,” and I was healed.”” (taken from Zohar,
Hadqamat Sefer ha-Zohar p21)

For more on the Jewish perspective on asking the righteous (Tzadik) to pray
for Jews on earth, though they reject the use of the words “pray to” and use
“ask” or “chat,” and avoid using intermediary, but nonetheless uphold the
practice and point to its ancient origins., and how it does not conflict with
the prohibition of “beseeching the dead” etc…see chabad.org

Saturday, March 16, 2013

Every
one therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before myFather who is in heaven.—Matthew 10:32

All
things are delivered to me by myFather. And no one knoweth the
Son, but the Father: neither doth any one know the Father, but the Son, and he
to whom it shall please the Son to reveal him.—Matthew 11:27

Jesus
answered: If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is myFather
that glorifieth me, of whom you say that he is your God.—John 8:54

This
commandment have I received of myFather.—John 10:18

Jesus
answered and said to him, "Whoever loves me will keep my word, and my
Father will love him, and WE will
come to him and make OUR dwelling
with him.Whoever
does not love me does not keep my words; yet the word you hear is not mine but
that of the Father who sent me.—John 14:23-24

Nor
does the Father judge anyone,
but he has given all judgment to his Son,
so that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not
honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.—John 5:22-23

Friday, March 15, 2013

Some modalists assume that simply because the term "Father" is applied
to Jesus in Isaiah 9:6 (9:5) that this means Jesus is God the Father.
This is not the case at all. "Eternal Father" (Avi Ad in Hebrew) simply
is a term of authority here. The whole subject of Isaiah 9:6 (5) and
the subsequent verse Isaiah 9:7(6) is about authority. Making references
to the "government" "counselor" "El" (which can mean God, judge,
mighty), "Father" and "Prince."

The term "father" is used elsewhere in Isaiah 22:21 where it says about Eliakim

I will commit thy government into his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah.

We see the term "father" here is just an authority figure.

Likewise,
when Joseph was made an advisor to Pharoah and given authority he says
of himself that he was a "father to Pharoah" (Genesis 45:8)

Sunday, March 10, 2013

One topic that keeps coming backup is Baptists making the false claim that they've always existed (despite the lack of evidence, writings etc). Well here is a quote of one of the Anabaptist "creeds" (remember there were several rival groups called anabaptists in the "radical reformation")

The baptizer first testifies to the
baptizand and asks if he believes in God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
The baptizand confesses. He then is asked if he desires to yield himself to God to
live for Him and His church. If so, he is told to kneel before God and church, and
water is poured upon him. If baptism cannot be performed before the entire church,
the baptizer may perform the ordinance alone.--Ridemann's Rechenschaft,1540: Article VII, The formula for Baptism

As is commonly known, Baptists INSIST on FULL immersion and NOT pouring. Yet, these Anabaptists in 1540 were fine with pouring, in fact they recommended it!

Here is another early Anabaptist confession:

Thereby shall also fall away from
us thediabolical weapons
of violence--such as sword, armor, and the like, and all of their use
to protect friends or against enemies--by virtue of the word of Christ: "you
shall not resist evil."--Schleitheim Confession (1527), Anabaptist, Article IV

These anabaptists were opposed to weapons of violence, unlike modern American Baptists (eg Southern Baptists) who are very fond of weapons of violence, particularly guns!

The fact is for the most part the descendants of the groups called anabaptists in the 15th and 16th century were are now called the Mennonites, Amish, and Unitiarian & Universalists. Obviously, the latter is not the same as the first two. In any case, the anabaptists of the 15th, 16th century were STARTED by ex-Catholics. Just as the other form of anabaptists were lead by people that were CATHOLIC. According to one reformed website modern day baptists descend from "particular baptists" that broke from the Anglican Church--they were originally more Calvinist is doctrine, then after coming to America conformed to the culture and resulted in a more Arminian form of Baptist theology. In the case of the Donatists of St Augustine's time, these "anabaptists" accepted all Catholic theology but held errors like baptisms performed by a sinful priest were not valid (therefore requiring "rebaptism).

Points made:
1) Mark 16:16 & Acts 2:38 teach baptism saves
2)The thing mentioned after "and" and before "saved" or "for the remission of sin" is not superfluous
a)If it was intended to be unnecessary detail then Jesus and Peter were both guilty of poor communicating
b)They could have phrased the verses in such a way as to say baptism does NOT save
c)John 3:5 likewise has two things joined together by an "and"--this would mean only "being born of water" saves, and not being "born of Spirit"!

Two significant verses that link baptism with salvation and forgiveness of sins are:

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.--Mark 16:16 KJV

Then
Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the
name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the
gift of the Holy Ghost.--Acts 2:38 KJV

Some Protestants in their last ditch effort in order to deny baptismal regeneration / salvation have concocted another theory that goes like this:

Mark 16:16 is like sayings "whoever believes and is born in Dallas shall be saved" that doesn't mean being in Dallas makes you saved or had any contribution to being saved!

The argument essentially is that the second thing mentioned in the "and" is absolutely superfluous and was just added for detail. Here is how these Protestant essentially understand the verses:

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved--Crossing out the "extra, unnecessary section" of Mark 16:16 following the fake "and rule"

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christfor the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.--Crossing out the "extra, unnecessary section" of Acts 2:38 following the fake "and rule"

This means they believe Jesus was saying something unnecessarily and placing it in a sentence where it would be bound to be more than likely misinterpreted! If Jesus WANTED to say being baptized had nothing to do with being saved why didn't He instead say it like this:

He that believeth shall be saved and [should] be baptized; but he that believeth not shall be damned.--How some Protestants want to read Mark 16:16

Likewise, with Acts 2:38, why didn't St Peter just say:

Then Peter said unto them, Repent every one of you for the remission of sins and be baptized, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.--How some Protestants want read Acts 2:38

Okay, let's assume that the "is/be baptized" in Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38 are just added, completely unnecessary detail the Lord and St Peter just threw in there. Let's now apply this rule that the thing following after "and" is just unnecessary, added detail and has no real bearing on salvation. We have John 3:5, a favorite verse especially among Baptists:

Jesus
answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of
water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.-John 3:5 KJV

Now this is how the verse looks like when we apply their fake "what's mentioned after and doesn't matter rule" is applied (let's cross out the "unnecessary, added detail that follows and, just as they did with Acts 2:38 & Mark 16:16):

Jesus
answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of
water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.--Apply the same Protestant rule used in Acts 2:38 & Mark 16:16 to John 3:5

Congratulations! Universalism is now true! Now everyone will enter the kingdom of God because they are simply "born of water" (the amniotic vaginal fluid according to Baptists) by this fake rule.

Conclusion: We should not arbitrarily make rules up to fit our theology as some Protestants do with Acts 2:38 and Mark 16, as well with their fake rule about parables not having "names" like in Luke 16 with the "rich man and Lazarus."

Friday, March 8, 2013

Contrary to some Protestant claims, and the Pelagians of St Augustine's day, he did not view ALL sex as being sinful, rather he considered having sex outside of the purpose of procreation as sinful, but even then, if it were between a married couple it would be a venial sin (small sin that is not deadly). Here is what St Augustine says on this matter:

It is, however, one thing for married persons to have intercourse only for the wish to beget children, which is not sinful: it is another thing for them to desire carnal pleasure in cohabitation, but with the spouse only, which involves venial sin. For although propagation of offspring is not the motive of the intercourse, there is still no attempt to
prevent such propagation, either by wrong desire or evil appliance.--St Augustine On Marriage and Concupiscence Book I Chapter

It should also be mentioned St Augustine refers several times to Marriage as being a sacrament (at least in some sense of the word) unlike the Protestants who deny it sacramental status in any sense.

a) By showing this would mean you repent because you have already been forgiven

b) By showing that the same Greek phrase "for the forgiveness of sins" when used by Jesus at the Last supper would have to mean that Jesus' blood was shed "because of the forgiveness of sins" meaning He died for nothing since since were already forgiven, making the atonement meaningless.

c)By claiming that "eis" in Matthew 12:41 is proof that it means "because of."

2) The false claim that: That baptism here does not refer to water baptism, but a separate, dry Holy Spirit baptism.

3) The false claim that: Remission does not mean forgiveness.

Saving Baptism from the Baptists:﻿

Baptismal regeneration is taught in Acts 2:38

Then Peter said unto
them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus
Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the
Holy Ghost.--Acts 2:38 KJV

Argument 1a: Some Protestants, especially Baptists (and similar groups like Calvary chapel, pentecostal etc) that deny baptismal regeneration will offer a rebuttal to this argument trying to draw on the ambiguity of the term "eis" in Greek, which the KJV and most Bible translate as "for" or "into," they will argue that it here REALLY means "because of," despite the lack of bible translations that use this! Before we look at the word "eis"'s meaning in the New Testament let's change the verse to say "because of" instead of "for."

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ because of the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.--Acts 2:38 "theoretical" and non existent translation

Now, this theoretically rendering would mean something more than just saying you are "baptized because you ALREADY have the remission of sins." It means you "repent" for the same reason--that you were ALREADY forgiven! that is: "Repent... because of the remission of sins." No one outside of some Calvinists would agree with this statement that repentance comes AFTER forgiveness. 1 John 1:9 tells us the opposite order occurs: repent->forgiven not forgiven ->repent!

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.-1 John 1:9 KJV

Argument 1b: Now let's say someone is obstinant and insists Acts 2:38 still means "because of" in regards to baptism. We know this cannot be case because an identical phrase is used in the gospels in both Greek and English. Let us see (the relevant phrase is in red:

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.--Acts 2:38 KJV

The other 2 usages of "for the remission of sins" "εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν" are Mark 1:4, Luke 3:3, but since they are about John the Baptist's "preaching of baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins" I omit them since they are of a similar nature to Acts 2:38, which would bring no clarity to the subject.

Looking at Matthew 26:28's "for the remission of sins" "εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν" does it make sense to translate the verse here as:

For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many because of the remission of sins.-Matthew 26:28 (theoretical baptist translation)

certainly not! Since such rendering is a rejection of the atonment! It would have to mean Jesus' blood was shed because sin was ALREADY forgiven which is blasphemous nonesense! So why should we translate "eis" differently in Acts 2:38?

Argument 1c: Some Protestants in recent years, as part of their desperate attempt to reject baptismal regeneration have concocted the claim "eis" means "because of" in Matthew 12:41 in reference to Jonah:

The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and
shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and,
behold, a greater than Jonas is here.--Matthew 12:41 KJV

One thing to first note is that NO translation that I have looked at translates "eis" here as "because of. Looking at the lexicon of "eis" it means "into" and not "because of." Essentially, it means they "repented INTO the preaching of Jonah," its not saying they repented "because of" or "in order to." Here is a Protestant website that quote two Protestant professors who both reject baptismal regeneration--the later is a Baptist:

Professor Daniel Wallace is associated with the Dallas Theological
Seminary in Texas. From a personal theological perspective, he does not
believe that baptism is required as a condition for the remission of
sins. This is important to keep in mind. Dr. Wallace is the author of
the highly acclaimed work, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. Therein he has a discussion of the so-called causal use of eis. He contends that studies have shown that “the linguistic evidence for a causal eis”
falls short of proof. He stingingly calls this misguided twisting of
the preposition an “ingenious solution” that “lacks conviction” (1996,
370-371).

The same article I just cited also claims the word that would have been used to express because of it "dia"--through! That is the people "repented through the preaching of Jonah." So eis does not mean "because of" there either.

Argument 2: Now, for the second argument that Acts 2:38 is about a separate Holy Spirit baptism. It makes you wonder why Act's uses the phrase in several other verses EXCEPT here. The authorize themselves to declare any reference to simply "baptism" to be "Holy Spirit baptism" based on their own theological bias. By even making this argument they are making St Luke, the writer of Acts (writing by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) negligent by refering to "baptism with the Holy Spirit" as simply "baptism," when elsewhere like in Acts 1, Acts 11. Acts frequently uses the term "Holy Spirit" and "baptism" and certainly St Peter, who was one of the 12, and was familiar with John the baptist and his reference to baptism of the Holy Spirit (Acts 11:16), then it must be asked if St Peter in Acts 2:38 was refering to a dry "Holy Spirit baptism" then why doesn't Acts or St Peter simply STATE "be baptized with the Holy Spirit." Furthermore, we have a number of verses in Acts were baptism is simply used and it undeniably refers to immersion in water, does this mean these people never received the Holy Spirit baptism, or that Acts did not care to report if they did? And if the people in Acts 2:38 receieved a "Holy Spirit baptism" then why is there no reference to their baptism in water?

In short, this claim that Acts 2:38 is a dry baptism relies on reading assumptions into the text!

Argument 3: For the third claim, that "remission" is like "cancer in remission" this claim I refuted in another article see question 7. The word in the Greek text for remission and forgiveness is actually the exact same word and historically in the English speaking Christian church was used interchangably.

The word remission can mean both forgiveness and the alternate meaning.
However, forgiveness/pardon is the meaning when dealing with sins. Here
is the origin of the word remission itself:

But,
this is not so helpful since this is just a translation of the Greek.
The Greek word used in Acts 2:38 that bibles like the King James Version
and the Douay Rheims for what the translation as "remission" is λήμψεσθε. λήμψεσθε
simple means to let something go. Mark 3:29 uses this Greek word in the
sense the eternal sin can never be "forgiven" it would not make much
sense if this eternal sin were only suppressed or whatever other
secondary sense exist in English. In fact the King James Version
translatesλήμψεσθε as "forgiven" a few times Acts 5:31, 13:38, 26:18, Ephesians 1:7, Colossians 1:14. It means forgiven.